Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Samuel George Nichols

19 June 2020

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Samuel George Nichols (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 20 months with a non-parole period of 10 months imposed upon his conviction for matters of wounding, common assault x4, breach of police family violence order x 5, emotional abuse or intimidation.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for parole on 8 May 2020.

The applicant first appeared before the Board at its meeting on 24 April 2020 at which time the application was adjourned to enable the Board to obtain a psychological report following assessment of the applicant. The matter was brought back before the Board at its meeting on 19 June 2020. On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and was invited to provide any information he had in support of his application and made himself available for questioning by the Board.

The pre-parole report prepared on behalf the Board had been read to the applicant prior to her appearance at the hearing.

Statutory Criteria

In determining the application, the Board has had regard to the following statutory criteria:-

The Corrections Act 1997, s72, establishes a statutory criteria for determining suitability for parole.

S72 (4) specifically provides as follows:

“In determining whether or not a prisoner should be released on parole, the Board is to take into consideration –

• The likelihood of the prisoner re-offending; and
• The protection of the public; and
• The rehabilitation of the prisoner; and
• Any remarks made by the court in passing sentence; and
• The likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions; and
• The circumstances and gravity of the offence, or offences, for which the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while in prison and, if he or she has been in a secure mental health unit, while in that secure mental health unit; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner during any previous release on parole; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while subject to any order of a court; and
• Any reports tendered to the Board on the social background of the prisoner, the medical, psychological or psychiatric condition of the prisoner or any other matter relating to the prisoner, including in the case of a prisoner who is or has been a forensic patient any report of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist; and
• The probable circumstances of the prisoner after release from prison; and
• Any statement provided under subsection (2B) by a victim, or, if subsection (2AB) applies, the parent or guardian of the victim, of an offence for which the prisoner has been sentenced to imprisonment; and
• If the prisoner is a sex offender prisoner, any notice or assessment given to the Board pursuant to section 31(6) or (7) concerning the prisoner's participation or non-participation in appropriate treatment; and
• Any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant.”

When considering the application for parole of a sex offender s31(3)(b) of the Act is also relevant:

• “The Director, on giving the sex offender prisoner the opportunity to participate in the appropriate treatment, is to inform the prisoner that…
• Participation, non-participation or unsatisfactory participation will, if the prisoner becomes eligible for parole, be factors taken into consideration by the Board in determining whether the prisoner should be released on parole.”

The purpose of parole

The system of parole recognises the capacity of some prisoners for change and reform, the benefits of supervision, treatment and program delivery in the community and ultimately the potential this has for the protection of the community by reducing the risk of reoffending and supervising the reintegration of offenders.

When considering eligibility for parole this purpose must be weighed against the risk each prisoner may pose to members of the community if released to serve the remainder of their sentence amongst them and the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Consideration

The applicant’s offending behaviour arose in the context of a domestic dispute between himself and his partner. The relationship between the applicant and his partner was of approximately 12 months duration and violence had occurred during the period of the relationship. The particular offending behaviour occurred in breach of a police family violence order and consisted of the applicant punching his victim around her face and body.

As is the case with all domestic violence this offending behaviour perhaps typifies the circumstances where an individual is unable to control anger and have a belief set which endorses a right to control their partner by threat, intimidation and violence. Such beliefs are an anathema to society.

At the time of sentencing it was noted that the applicant was a young man and this was to be his first custodial sentence. Accordingly it was noted that rehabilitation was a prominent feature in determining the appropriate sentence.

Whilst serving his custodial sentence the applicant has achieved a medium classification and case notes reveal him to have behaved in an appropriate and polite manner with staff, demonstrated compliance with direction and positive behaviour. It is, however, noteworthy that there are some examples of internal disciplinary offending the most recent of which occurred in December 2019 and consisted of using a telephone for a purpose that was unauthorised. Other serious matters of internal offending include assault of another inmate, unlawful possession and damaging prison property. Whilst the offending behaviour appeared to have been a relatively frequent occurrence between July and December 2019 there was a considerable break in that behaviour after December 2019 to the date of the hearing of this application.

Whilst serving his custodial sentence the applicant has been unable to access any therapeutic programs and has remained on the wait list to the Apsley Program which is now no longer offered by the prison. The applicant has engaged in vocational course work including maths numeracy and has worked productively as a wardsman during the custodial term.

A psychological report obtained at the time of sentencing from Dr Mike Jordan refers to the likely need for the applicant to obtain psychological counselling and assessment upon his return to the community. Assessment obtained by the Board from forensic psychologist Dr Washington dated 4 June 2020 noted the following:

Significant drug use was engaged in by the applicant leading up to the offence;

Upon entering custody the applicant experienced feelings of paranoia;

Whilst he did not appear to demonstrate negative attitudes towards women he did tend to externalise all victim blame;

It was a concern that the applicant has sought to contact his victim by telephone during his custodial sentence (this is reflected in the aforementioned internal offending behaviour in misusing a telephone);

The applicant is at risk of engaging in aggressive or violent behaviours in situations of stress or heightened emotions and his risk of family violence “remains largely unexplored which makes it difficult to isolate triggers and high-risk situations”;

The main predisposing factors for the applicant’s vulnerability to breach of violence includes his mental health, substance use and social isolation.

Ultimately Dr Washington noted that there were several factors that may operate protectively for the applicant in the community including family support, stable accommodation and opportunities for employment.

Whilst it is of concern that the applicant has been unable to access therapeutic programs, particularly directed toward aggression and in the context of family relationships and his use of drugs, there are opportunities for him to engage in such programs and work on these matters whilst returned under supervision to the community.

The applicant is still young and this is his first term of imprisonment. As mentioned above, there are protective factors which will operate to mitigate the risk of repetitive behaviour. The applicant also needs to access treatment and appropriately monitor his mental health. For the protection of his victim conditions will be placed on the parole order preventing his contact of her.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

Subject to the usual conditions of a parole order together with:

Not to contact the victim;

To obtain a mental health care plan.

Paroled from 29 June 2020 - 8 March 2021